On March 20, Oakhurst Junior High School English teacher A. Elizabeth Citchens. had a letter to the editor printed in the Clarksdale Press-Register in which she wrote, among other things, that the Confederate flag was a “hindrance to … unity” and that it “brings to mind toothless hicks and eloping cousins.”
Ignorant comments to be sure, but the First Amendment to the Constitution does not protect only intelligent speech. However, Citchens mentioned something else in her letter as well.
“One of my students,” she wrote, “when asked to write on a historical event he or she might like to change, wrote that dumb Abraham Lincoln should never have ended slavery.” Citchens continued, “This student turned in the paper, redolent with words like ‘coloreds’ and ‘those people,’ garbed in a shirt made entirely of the Confederate flag.”
Apparently, Citchens is shocked and appalled to find out that adolescent junior high students are going to say ignorant things from time to time. I wonder if she is also aware that the sky is blue, clouds are white and that leaves grow on trees.
A lot of people did, thought, and said things in junior high that they’re not proud of. At 14, I myself believed that the United States would do well to implement a few policies modeled on fascist principles. I also thought that “Beverly Hills Cop II” was the greatest movie of all time.
However, not all of us were publicly taken to task in the pages of the local paper, like Citchens’ student was. Citchens did not mention the student’s name, age or gender, nor did she mention at which school she teaches. But in a town the size of Clarksdale, I doubt it would be difficult to find out. Besides, the student in question knows about whom she was talking, as does the rest of the class.
Mentioning the student’s essay in her letter, according to the Clarksdale Municipal School District, warranted a reprimand and suspension. According to Policy 32 of the Clarksdale School District Policy, “Teachers … are required not to purposely humiliate or embarrass students … in a spiteful and or degrading manner by singling out or calling attention to imperfections.” Citchens’ attorney, Ellis Pittman, disagrees, as attorneys are inclined to do, and stated, “School policy does not have more authority than the United States Constitution.”
Let’s throw out the legalities of this issue for just a moment and look at the main dynamic involved. Citchens is a teacher, trusted with a sacred and noble responsibility: the education of the young. What lesson has the student she mentioned learned? From this point forward, will the student be more or less receptive to anything Citchens has to say? I know from my own experiences that when students feel as though the teacher doesn’t like them or wants to make an example of them, they tend to close ranks, close the ears and close the mind.
Chances are, this student will become more defensive about what it is he or she believes, less willing to listen, and hence, less willing to learn anything in Citchens’ class. If that is the case, then Citchens will have failed in her first responsibility as an educator, which is to educate. This is what should be of paramount concern to all parties involved.
Without a doubt, what this student said was titanically ignorant. It is just as ignorant as Citchens’ comments about “toothless hicks and eloping cousins.” But the student did not submit the essay with the intention of having it quoted in a published letter to the editor. Although Citchens made no reference whatsoever to the student’s identity, it was still unethical to use the essay to make a point. This action further jeopardizes this already fragile student-teacher relationship.
Does Cictchens have a right to have and express an opinion? Absolutely. But in exercising her constitutional rights, she must be mindful of her “prime However, she also has a responsibility to the children in her charge.
Tony Odom is a graduate student in the history department.